But why were these eight dumped?
See, Conservatives have questions too -- National Review Online, March 21, 2007:
"Of course, the President has the political and constitutional authority to hire and fire these prosecutors. But why were these eight dumped? Why not the other eighty-five? It seems to me if you use a press conference event to go over the heads of the mainstream media, and broadcast to the American public, you have to deliver a clear rationale for your actions."
Well, it started with the firing of eight federal prosecutors and now has turned into a tug-of-war over testimony. The White House won't go for putting it in writing, Congress won't go for anything less.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials."
Wasn't Bush cute having his little pugnacious hissy-fit?
Sorry, but this is a real scandal. If Congress asks you questions and your answers vary, you've created a problem for yourself. The smart thing to do is not answer at all or always answer the same question exactly the same way.
I'll tell you one thing -- if the White House is negotiating for testimony NOT under oath, it is clearly so that they can lie lie lie. If Congress accepts these conditions they are stupid stupid stupid. If it isn't under oath, it will be a waste of time and oxygen to watch Rove, Miers, Gonzalez, et al flap their lips.
If there's nothing to hide, what's wrong having a transcript, what is the objection to an oath? Are they afraid that we'll be able to go through and find inconsistencies in the testimony in a transcript?
A Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Spector, said it would be better to have it done in the open under oath so no doubts could be raised.
And them releasing all those e-mails, 3,000 pages .. unprecedented, very responsive. But, wait a minute .. why is there this big gap from mid-November to about December 4th, right before the actual firings? Why is there a gap in the e-mail?
Bottom line is that most of the fired US Atty's were investigating corruption cases that might have hurt the RNC and Bush Administration. I think that is commonly known as OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE .. although I'm not a lawyer, I had dinner with one once and I'm pretty sure obstruction is ILLEGAL.
And some of those Atty's were called at home by members of Congress asking about ongoing cases. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Doc Hastings (R-WA) have acknowledged that they contacted a US Attorney about an ongoing case, which may VIOLATE CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS rules.
In a New York Times op ed piece Atty. Iglesias wrote this. "A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign, even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate."
Can't get more glaringly obvious than that.
And why is this Clinton Did It talking point still alive?
One last time -- most ALL presidents purge at the BEGINNING of their terms. The Clinton administration, like the H.W. Bush and Reagan administrations before it, asked for ALL US Attorneys to resign at the beginning of their respective presidential terms.
They don't however, fire just 8 of their own for partisan political reasons -- not investigating enough Democrats, too many Republicans being investigated -- in midterm.
They say this mess could stretch out until after Bush leaves office.
Why any Democrat in his or her right mind would want to inherit the mess left by this incompetent and criminal leadership I just don't know.
